Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Chase, FWIW, you have a reputation for blaming the lazy and those without a strong work ethic. Heck, I even agree with you and I would prefer them to be like the rest of us. However, the statistics that NFRsnyc2000 is in contradiction to YOUR beliefs about entitlements going to the lazy. The charts show the majority is going to the eldery, disabled, and people of 65 (baby boomers?) - that is why I thought it was funny and made a joke.

Well my sources (charts) seem to be based on US government statistics (unless the charts themselves are cooked) so I deemed them credible. There is still a VERY large number of people that fit into Chase's category though, even using my charts.

Well my sources (charts) seem to be based on US government statistics (unless the charts themselves are cooked) so I deemed them credible. There is still a VERY large number of people that fit into Chase's category though, even using my charts.

yeah, one chart shows 18% - as opposed to ~73% going to the disabled/elderly/people over 65

It's all right though, Chase's jimmies are rustled. mission accomplished

I want to see him when he's over 65 and complains about entitlement reform

It's far more realistic to see SS modified as opposed to done away with. Things like raising the NRA, limiting how many ex-spouses can get benefits, etc. would do wonders to help the program. Also, it's far from a "failed system."

The system is flawed for a few reasons.

1) Lets face it, it's a ponzi scheme, and relies on people to keep having babies AND working.

2) It's a program made to help those that can't save. Fine. No reason why the government should control that money. Have that money go into an account that people can't touch until retirement (similar to a roth.) The money can't be taxed and can't be spent or borrowed against. Having the government be able to dip into the cookie jar makes this system flawed beyond repair IMHO.

Well my sources (charts) seem to be based on US government statistics (unless the charts themselves are cooked) so I deemed them credible. There is still a VERY large number of people that fit into Chase's category though, even using my charts.

Believe it or not, paying Entitlement checks is cheaper than finding and maintaining jobs for unskilled labor. Reason being is the money we give them almost 90% of the time goes right back into the market. Yea, it looks bad when we cut the checks, but it actually helps us.

Last I saw the MPC is around 0.9, which is pretty good place.

See if I can make the MPC a little easier to understand (not talkiing sh1t, it took me a while, too)

If it's 0.9, it will be 1/1-.9----or 10. You multiply 10 times whatever you do (e.g. $1000 increase in government spending), will yield 10,000 more in production. If it's 0.99, it would be 1/0.01, or 100. So the people with the lowest MPC, do the least for productivity and vice versa. We won't it around 0.9, because if it's too high, a negative facto( e.g. $1000 decrease in GS)r could do way more damage because of the multiplier.

Edit: if it's 0.5 (someone with the ability to save half of their earnings) the multiplier is only 2.

1) Lets face it, it's a ponzi scheme, and relies on people to keep having babies AND working.

2) It's a program made to help those that can't save. Fine. No reason why the government should control that money. Have that money go into an account that people can't touch until retirement (similar to a roth.) The money can't be taxed and can't be spent or borrowed against. Having the government be able to dip into the cookie jar makes this system flawed beyond repair IMHO.

It's not a ponzi scheme no matter how hard people try to draw parallels. Relating the two either shows ones lack of understanding about the two, or means they have some sort of political axe to grind....you can figure out which one you are.

You keep harping on what should be done in regards to private accounts and what not, but that's not reality, nor will it be for the foreseeable future.

Something that is feasible is not allowing politicians to dip their hands into the pot.

Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes. Some people work harder. Some people are lucky. Some people are born into wealth. Some people start from nothing and build it themselves. Some people expect a handout. Some people are unlucky. Some people have a big butt and got famous making a sex tape. Etc etc etc. Capitalism has created more opportunity for more people than socialism ever has. Notice how communist and socialist countries have virtually no middle class. You have the political elite and the poor and that's about it. Why does anyone want that in the US?

Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes. Some people work harder. Some people are lucky. Some people are born into wealth. Some people start from nothing and build it themselves. Some people expect a handout. Some people are unlucky. Some people have a big butt and got famous making a sex tape. Etc etc etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtgswede

Capitalism has created more opportunity for more people than socialism ever has. Notice how communist and socialist countries have virtually no middle class. You have the political elite and the poor and that's about it. Why does anyone want that in the US?

Not arguing with you, but I don't think true communism has been practiced anywhere. It's usually been some modified form of it - almost quasi dictatorship in some cases (e.g. Stalin, Mao, etc)

Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes. Some people work harder. Some people are lucky. Some people are born into wealth. Some people start from nothing and build it themselves. Some people expect a handout. Some people are unlucky. Some people have a big butt and got famous making a sex tape. Etc etc etc. Capitalism has created more opportunity for more people than socialism ever has. Notice how communist and socialist countries have virtually no middle class. You have the political elite and the poor and that's about it. Why does anyone want that in the US?

It's not a ponzi scheme no matter how hard people try to draw parallels. Relating the two either shows ones lack of understanding about the two, or means they have some sort of political axe to grind....you can figure out which one you are.

You keep harping on what should be done in regards to private accounts and what not, but that's not reality, nor will it be for the foreseeable future.

Something that is feasible is not allowing politicians to dip their hands into the pot.

You are saying that my plan is not feasible but believe this is? C'mon man. Whos gonna stop them?

Obama lol...was talking to a hardcore conservative at work today and he genuinely believes Obama will have a third term as president so he can continue to enact his social views. I was like da fuk?

__________________

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."

People are batshit crazy in this country on both ends of the spectrum. I've run into my fair share of lefty nutcases too. I love the entertainment provided though. Remember the comments about your average American...

__________________

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."

I view that as more realistic than creating private accounts, yes. Needless to say, neither of them are very probable.

That doesn't mean that private accounts aren't a better idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by evolved

Might as well throw in people who take a mortgage interest deduction, itemize their tax deductions and get muni bond income.

This is an illogical parallel to draw. Entitlements are something for nothing. Taking deductions are keeping more of what you earned. It is far more noble to work hard and keep more than to sit on your butt and collect...regardless of what the Marxists will have you believe.

__________________

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

“I wanted [Jimmy] Carter in and I wanted [Ford] out,” comedian Chevy Chase would later admit of his mocking Ford impersonation on "Saturday Night Live", “and I figured look, we're reaching millions of people every weekend, why not do it."